Question for US Citizens about NATO

Dec 2013
31,210
18,691
Beware of watermelons
#41
Photos reveal China’s South China Sea island fortresses are complete


China won the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974 (against SVN). China is building up & fortifying the Spratly & Paracel Islands, & they're tying to bum-rush merchantmen into avoiding those waters - a de facto kind of annexation of the islands & waters, in defiance of settled law. The Chinese claim against VN (for the islands) is still active, TMK.

The Chinese are very hard to get rid of, once they settle in. You could ask the VN about it - they took a long time to expel them, the first time. The Russians fold easily enough - their last tour through Tsushima Strait (against Imperial Japan), back in the days of the empire, was probably enough to scare them shitless yet. & the USSR tried for a blue-water navy again, but then their economic/political house of cards collapsed on them.

The Greek Empire was a real entity, back in the days of Alexander the Great. That doesn't seem likely to come back to haunt us now, though.

China's the one to watch. The Russian Federation bears watching, if only because they might get desperate for attention & start flailing about - a bigger-nation version of N. Korea's antics.

New photos and video have for the first time shown the illegal construction of artificial islands in the contested Spratly Islands is all but complete.

What they show in close-up detail confirms the fears raised by analysis of commercial satellite photographs by international affairs experts in the past two years: these are massive, impecabbly constructed and impressively equipped military fortresses.
amp.news.com.au/technology/innovation/photos-reveal-chinas-south-china-sea-island-fortresses-are-complete/news-story/776e1a695fb41ccb7e47a436594c1530
 
Dec 2015
13,804
12,683
Arizona
#42
I didn't grow up in the everyone gets a trophy times. When someone wasn't pulling their weight they got cut and i have always been a fan of winning. The EU is failing at an epic rate.

You didn't grow up when everyone got a trophy? Neither did I--neither did most of us. My sons certainly didn't grow up in that cultural mind-set either so I don't see your point because getting a blue ribbon for breathing is not about "joining". It's about recognition...and I certainly don't agree with it either--but again--that's not pertinent.

Then (once again) you throw in something completely unrelated: "The EU is failing at an epic rate" and you do so without a shred of proof--without a source or a reason but.....well...just because you can.

Our relationship with our European allies is not something to be taken lightly and Trump can rant all day, every day, about NATO not pulling it's weight, but his diatribes are getting us nowhere.
Europeans BUY American products--LOTS and LOTS of American products. Europeans support our factories/manufacturing and employ our citizens. Military bases provide intelligence and security forces all over the world. We rely on our allies for combined forces and support in times of disaster, like 9/11--hurricanes--floods--disease control and yes--WAR.

So we the people cannot just take our ball and go home.
 
Jul 2014
12,852
7,759
massachusetts
#43
If I understand correctly, your 22% source is only referring to what's invested into an infrastructure & coordination entity aspect of NATO. The pie chart, on the other hand, refers to total military spending for NATO member nations.

The only analogy I can think of is a football game. There's the salaries for the players and there's the salaries for the referees. The 75% refers to the salaries for the players and referees combined, and the 22% refers to just the salaries for the referees.

If a NATO member nation is attacked, the resources they have isn't just that infrastructure & coordination entity, it's potentially all of the military of all the NATO member nations, which is what that pie chart represents.

I may be slightly off about some of the details, but let me know if I'm way off the mark.
DO you think that US military spending for US forces in Korea and Japan should be counted as NATO spending?
 
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2018
738
194
Earth
#44
Is there a reason you think we ought to remain in NATO?

(If you answer this question on this thread, keep in mind given the title of this thread that by doing so, you are claiming to be a US Citizen unless you state that you are not a US Citizen.)
If we kill all of our real and potential enemies we won't have to continue to spend money on the military.

If we surrender to our enemies we won't have to spend money on our military.

If the people comprising the military refuse to fight on behalf of the 1%'ers there won't be any wars. After all, the most they will get out of it is a 50 cent medal or two.

So what's the best option?
 
Nov 2012
5,668
3,384
Kekistan
#45
That would be but a drop in the bucket.

Also, you are then indeed saying end NATO as not funding it ends it.

I think it very clear that this is just not the BIG PROBLEM Trump turns everything into a BIG PROBLEM. All NATO countries are stepping up what they contribute, thanks OBIE. All we need to do is to continue this trend.

Next issue.
Its not a drop in the bucket. When your entire military is geared to fight a war over seas, like our military is, then were paying for the defense of Europe and Asia. Our Military is not set up to "defend" the shores of the United States. That is a fucking laugh. The only portion of our military that even remotely is set up to defend the United States is our nukes and some token air defense systems. The industrial military complex has designed our armies and air to fight elsewhere. If our spending in NATO is such a drop in the bucket, then why are you defending it so hard? Its time for Europe and Asia to learn to defend themselves. We can still be their allies, but its time to close the bases, down size our military and use that money on the American people.
 
Apr 2013
34,969
23,667
Left coast
#46
Its not a drop in the bucket. When your entire military is geared to fight a war over seas, like our military is, then were paying for the defense of Europe and Asia. Our Military is not set up to "defend" the shores of the United States. That is a fucking laugh. The only portion of our military that even remotely is set up to defend the United States is our nukes and some token air defense systems. The industrial military complex has designed our armies and air to fight elsewhere. If our spending in NATO is such a drop in the bucket, then why are you defending it so hard? Its time for Europe and Asia to learn to defend themselves. We can still be their allies, but its time to close the bases, down size our military and use that money on the American people.
Yeah, but that's been the mantra of justification for attempts at world dominance, Vietnam, Iraq and other debacles.

We fight over there so we won't have to fight here.

With flags waving and bells ringing and resources being raped.
 
Nov 2012
5,668
3,384
Kekistan
#47
See my last post. It is wise and prudent to get greater contributions from all members.

I looked it up a few days ago I should have saved the link. Depending on how you loo at the numbers you get very different numbers.

I had the true % and it was not so great compared to the ridiculous stuff TRump blurts out.

Let me try and find the info again..... we are paying nothing like people think. It's perspective.

Also, did you look at out share vs our GDP vs Europe contributions vs GDP?

Now it makes sense.

Let me see if I find the real numbers again.... Not promising but I;ll look.
Trump was wrong. It is not 90%, its 70%

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/75427/embed

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2018/07/us-and-nato-allies-costs-and-value

The entire US military is designed to fight either in Europe or Asia/Middle East. The only exception is our ICBM's and the Navy
The United States Navy does have a Constitutional prerogative to keep sea lanes open world wide for trade. Europe and Asia have had 73 years to get their shit together. If the Russian economy is so fucking bad why cant France and England back Putin down in their own back yard? The answer is really easy. Why should they, when they got the yanks to carry their water for them. Long live the MIC and the neocons!
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2012
5,668
3,384
Kekistan
#48
Yeah, but that's been the mantra of justification for attempts at world dominance, Vietnam, Iraq and other debacles.

We fight over there so we won't have to fight here.

With flags waving and bells ringing and resources being raped.
That mantra sucks. Neocons rejoice, the MIC gets our money, we pay for medicare for all, everywhere but for our own people.
 
Jul 2018
2,403
1,123
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#49
Trump was wrong. It is not 90%, its 70%

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/75427/embed

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2018/07/us-and-nato-allies-costs-and-value

The entire US military is designed to fight either in Europe or Asia/Middle East. The only exception is our ICBM's and the Navy
The United States Navy does have a Constitutional prerogative to keep sea lanes open world wide for trade. Europe and Asia have had 73 years to get their shit together. If the Russian economy is so fucking bad why cant France and England back Putin down in their own back yard? The answer is really easy. Why should they, when they got the yanks to carry their water for them. Long live the MIC and the neocons!

Part of your post is good.

The number is under 70%. I think I posted it above. 63, 67????

When you weight this vs our GDP it's not awful. Obie did the right thing in getting Europe to step up and pay more while saying unified.
 
Jul 2018
2,403
1,123
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#50
Its not a drop in the bucket. When your entire military is geared to fight a war over seas, like our military is, then were paying for the defense of Europe and Asia. Our Military is not set up to "defend" the shores of the United States. That is a fucking laugh. The only portion of our military that even remotely is set up to defend the United States is our nukes and some token air defense systems. The industrial military complex has designed our armies and air to fight elsewhere. If our spending in NATO is such a drop in the bucket, then why are you defending it so hard? Its time for Europe and Asia to learn to defend themselves. We can still be their allies, but its time to close the bases, down size our military and use that money on the American people.
It's not possible to be the biggest economy on the globe and have an isolationist policy and prosper as we have.

I like my 3000 square foot home, two big barns and the crazy audio gear I have. I don't want to give that up to save a few bucks.

I respect that you are OK taking a step backward.
 

Similar Discussions